212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356
Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff North 7th Street Associates sued defendant Constante for unlawful detainer based on a three-day notice to pay or quit alleging $739.35 in past-due rent for a month-to-month tenancy at 1442 Alvarado Terrace #2.
- Defendant lived in the unit ~15 years and pleaded that the unit was subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO) and that the three-day notice overstated rent.
- A housing inspector’s January 29, 2015 abatement notice found the unit was constructed without a building permit, had no certificate of occupancy, and was not authorized as a dwelling; plaintiff conceded the rental agreement was void and unenforceable.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing an unlawful (unpermitted) unit makes rent unenforceable and thus the three-day notice overstated the amount due (actual rent obligation = $0).
- Plaintiff argued (relying on Gruzen v. Henry) that even if rent could not be recovered, plaintiff still was entitled to possession; trial court granted summary judgment for defendant and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of three-day notice where unit is unpermitted | Landlord (Plaintiff) argued landlord can obtain possession despite rental agreement being void (Gruzen) | Notice overstated rent because void rental agreement means tenant owed $0; overstated notice invalidates unlawful detainer | The notice was fatally defective because actual rent obligation was zero; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Recoverability of past-due rent from unpermitted unit | Plaintiff: possession and rent award possible per Gruzen | Defendant: unlawful unit bars enforcement of rent and use of unlawful detainer to collect rent | Court: landlord cannot collect rent for unlawful unit; three-day notice must state accurate amount, so rent claim fails |
| Applicability of LARSO/relocation benefits to possession claim | Plaintiff argued unlawful detainer was based solely on 3-day notice, not LARSO | Defendant noted LARSO context but relied on void tenancy for defense | Court declined to rely on LARSO reasoning; ruled on statutory notice defect and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment purpose and standard)
- Gruzen v. Henry, 84 Cal.App.3d 515 (landlord-tenant void rental agreement for lack of certificate of occupancy)
- Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 1035 (three-day notice invalid if it seeks rent in excess of amount due)
- Kwok v. Bergren, 130 Cal.App.3d 596 (special statutory unlawful detainer procedures must be strictly followed)